Obviously getting way off topic, but if you want a detailed analysis of the motivations and surprising findings of these games, they are the four classics of game theory: the dictator game, the ultimatum game, the public (goods) game, and the trust game.
The researchers know what they're doing here, the question really is whether we want to support fairly random pieces of research in this obvious a manner. -- Harry (User:Jarry1250) On Mon, Dec 12, 2011 at 10:03 PM, Thomas Dalton <[email protected]>wrote: > On 12 December 2011 21:52, Richard Farmbrough <[email protected]> > wrote: > > It is, but the type of Wikimedians who would go in for this are likely > > to be more familiar with game theory than the average bear. > > Yes, I'm curious what they actually want to learn. I'm guessing its > something to do with alturism, but I'm not sure it will work. > > It seems obvious to me that the optimal strategy is to completely > screw over your associates (it's not the optimal group strategy, but > you can't control what the group does), so that's what I did (the > researchers then screwed me over by randomly choosing the game with > the least win as the one I actually got - they said it was random, but > they never said they had equal probabilties!). I'm obviously an > alturistic person (I wouldn't volunteer here otherwise), but my > alturism doesn't extend to giving random people on the internet that I > don't know and that don't know me money that I have no idea what > they'll do with. It's just not a realistic scenario. > > _______________________________________________ > Wikimedia UK mailing list > [email protected] > http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l > WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org >
_______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list [email protected] http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
